Dear Bob, In the data analysis world, we have a well known proverb, "If
you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything". Bob,I'm sorry to hear what you've had to endure for the last several weeks.
The way you have been treated is outrageous. The RDXC Committee owe it
to the contesting community to present their 'evidence' against Bob
publicly so that we can come to our own conculsions. The charge that the
RDXC makes that Bob was "running HP on 80/40m but not full-time, just 10
minutes here and there" is a trumped up charge if ever I've heard one.
The RBN provides a mass of useful data but it is uncalibrated for
starters. By comparing data over long periods trends can emerge,
suggestions can be made but over short periods, for instance 10 minutes,
the lack of meaningful and calibrated data can give very misleading
results. I don't own an ampliier, I don't have gain antennas, I find it
fascinating that occasionally my signals appear stronger than known HP
entrants. The ionosphere with it's QSB, QRM and QRN and an uncalibrated
non-GPS time synced Reverse Beacon Network lends itself to
miss-interpretation unless you understand what you are dealing with. 73
Dez, G3WW --------------------------------------------- /At the end of
an extraordinary seven week episode, owing as little to the pursuit of
truth and justice as Kafka’s “The Trial”, my SOAB Mixed LP submission to
the Russian DX Contest 2016 has been confirmed reclassified to “High
Power”. I am told similar reclassifications happen every year. Entrants
defend themselves, complain bitterly of unfair treatment then threaten
never to enter RDXC again. Apparently they all come back the following
year despite their protestations. Not this time. Oh what it is to be
judged through eyes coloured by the mores of another culture. The
conduct of this episode has completely poisoned my opinion of this event
and its adjudication, a fact the contest director concerned appears to
find impossible to comprehend. I will not participate in the Russian DX
Contest again. I favour firm but fair adjudication but this has been
neither. Things started to go awry when I received a mail from a
director of the contest on 12th August in which he advised signals from
P3F during RDXC 2016 had been observed at times equal or stronger than
those from P33W, a nearby station entered in the HP category. He asked
whether I would agree to having P3F entry reclassified from SOAB Mixed
LP to the HP category. I responded immediately rejecting the proposal
and reaffirming P3F operation had been within the rules and 100W power
limit at all times. Protracted communication unfolded via e-mail
following his initial contact. I was sent some graphs made using the RBN
analysis tool. These compared signals from P3F to those from P33W and
superficially appeared to support the allegation. Something was clearly
wrong. I conducted my own review of the data held within these graphs
which visually compare time displaced S/N measurements in a join the
dots format. The effect of joining the dots giving the impression both
signals were coincident when in fact hours may have lapsed between
measurements. I set out to extract comparative S/N data which was
reasonably time-coincident. There were remarkably few spots coincident
within a minute, so I broadened the span to cover several minutes.
Comparison of these measurements by node told an entirely different
story. Signals from P33W were found at their peak to be stronger than
those from P3F by up to 28dB on 10m; 22dB on 15m; 25dB on 20m; 23dB on
40m and 12dB on 80m where P3F uses a full size 4-square (5.5dB gain) and
P33W uses a single vertical. There were not enough data points to
support meaningful analysis on 160m. On the flip side, P3F signals at
peak were found relative to those from P33W to be 0dB on 10m; -10dB on
15m; 2dB on 20m; 9dB on 40m and 1dB on 80m. Each time I sent an analysis
of time-coincident data to the director I requested feedback on anything
considered flawed or unfair. No such feedback was provided at any stage
but the allegation started to change shape. Despite having supplied the
RDXC director the above data which I believe well illustrates the LP
nature of P3F signals compared to those from P33W, P3F entry has been
reclassified to the HP category. Throughout the exchanges between us, my
provision of time-coincident data has been met with indifference for one
reason or another. I first spent several hours extracting the data for
10, 15 and 20m. On sending this to the director I received the following
response, “I don't care about HF bands since antenna rotations and
propagation can affect signal levels in bigger way.” I was
flabbergasted. These were graphs HE had provided as the basis upon which
it was asserted I had flouted contest rules. I took the opportunity to
point out P3F uses steerable gain arrays on 40 and 80m. If use of these
rendered 20, 15 & 10m comparisons of no interest then why did 80/40
remain interesting? The question remains unanswered. During the course
of the last seven weeks, allegations have gone from simply “running HP”
to “running HP on 80/40m” to running HP on 80/40m but not full-time,
just 10 minutes here and there.” All of which is absolute nonsense. A
barefoot K3 at 100W output was in use at all times during the event. No
exceptions! As the alleged offence morphed and the underlying “evidence”
along with it, I sought opportunity to review and comment upon it. All
such requests were denied. I have enjoyed my association with contesting
over almost 50 years during which I have earned a few bouquets and
suffered several disappointments. In all it has been a great ride during
which I have made many friends among whom I believe I have established a
reputation as one of the good guys. Wrongful reclassification of my LP
entry to RDXC as HP undermines all of this with the consequence my
enthusiasm for contesting has been thrust to a significant low. I have
often pondered with advancing years the wisdom of spending 24 or near 48
hours sat in a chair over a contest weekend. I will spend no time
pondering whether any contest is worth seven weeks of unwarranted grief
post event. During the past seven weeks I have at times felt angry, sad
and frustrated at the injustice of it all but hopelessly so; the
adjudicators have proven immune to my input, their decision is final, no
matter how unreasonable, no matter how flawed. I have no redress other
than to make details of this bizarre episode available to those who may
be interested. Many questions arise among which for me the following
stand out: 1. How fair is an adjudication process in which the accused
is denied opportunity to comment on the data upon which allegations
against him stand? 2. What more might I have done to “prove” the LP
compliance of my entry? 3. How reliable an adjudication tool is RBN
data? How did we end up here? I don’t know with any certainty though
everal possibilities have played through my mind. Likely it doesn’t make
much sense to speculate at this juncture. The story is too long already.
Significant or not I don’t know but the RDXC director concerned was Igor
“Harry” Booklan, RA3AUU who is also the owner of P33W. Bob Henderson,
5B4AGN P3F SOAB Mixed LP in RDXC 2016/
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|